Trop Anim Health Prod (2015) 47:369–376 DOI 10.1007/s11250-014-0730-2
REGULAR ARTICLES
Evaluation of pig production practices, constraints and opportunities for improvement in smallholder production systems in Kenya Jackson Mwenda Mbuthia & Thomas Odiwuor Rewe & Alexander Kigunzu Kahi
Received: 25 June 2014 / Accepted: 18 November 2014 / Published online: 2 December 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract This study evaluated pig production practices by smallholder farmers in two distinct production systems geared towards addressing their constraints and prospects for improvement. The production systems evaluated were semiintensive and extensive and differed in remoteness, market access, resource availability and pig production intensity. Data were collected using structured questionnaires where a total of 102 pig farmers were interviewed. Qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed to define the socioeconomic characteristics of the production systems, understanding the different roles that pigs play, marketing systems and constraints to production. In both systems, regular cash income and insurance against emergencies were ranked as the main reasons for rearing pigs. Marketing of pigs was mainly driven by the type of production operation. Finances, feeds and housing were identified as the major constraints to production. The study provides important parameters and identifies constraints important for consideration in design of sustainable production improvement strategies. Feeding challenges can be improved through understanding the composition and proper utilization of local feed resources. Provision of adequate housing would improve the stocking rates and control mating.
Keywords Extensive system . Kenya . Management practices . Pigs . Semi-intensive system
J. M. Mbuthia : A. K. Kahi (*) Animal Breeding and Genomics Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Egerton University, P.O. Box 536-20115, Egerton, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] T. O. Rewe Department of Animal Sciences, Pwani University, P.O. Box 195-80108, Kilifi, Kenya
Introduction In Kenya, pig production plays important socioeconomic roles at both household and national levels. Pig rearing is mainly by smallholder farmers who constitute about 70 % of the total pig farmers (MOLD 2006). Production systems for pigs in the tropics, including Kenya, include large-scale commercial systems that are characterized by improved breeds, use of commercial concentrates for feeding and proper housing with sophisticated equipment, incorporating biosafety measures (Lekule and Kyvsgaard 2003). The commercial small-scale system is characterized by improved breeds, high planes of nutrition consisting of concentrates and therefore relatively high performance (Wabacha et al. 2004). In the free-range ‘scavenging’ system, pigs move freely around the house and the surroundings scavenging a large part of their food. There might be supplementation with kitchen swill or agricultural waste products. Pigs are rarely sheltered and there is no investment on feed concentrates or medical services (Kagira et al. 2010). These production systems can combine one or more type of animal species with crops and fish to become an integrated production system whereby the output from one subsystem becomes an input to the other subsystems (Huynh et al. 2007). The different production systems determine the herd sizes, structures and dynamics and can be modified according to resource availability. This study focuses on smallholder semi-intensive and extensive tethered/free-range systems. Over the years, pig production in Kenya has remained relatively unexploited despite the country having an established pig industry. The production potential remains underutilized due to lack of properly defined production practices and organized breeding programmes to facilitate improvement. In smallholder systems, inadequate feeding, inefficient veterinary care and inbreeding are some of the major impediments to pigs expressing their full performance
370
potential (Lemke et al. 2006; Wabacha et al. 2004). For improvement programmes to be successful, there is the need for appropriate understanding of these systems so as to holistically address their constraints such as feeding, breeding, health, management and marketing infrastructure. In this study, the existing pig production practices were evaluated. Intrinsic aspects are the farm characteristics, reasons for keeping pigs, feeding management, housing, veterinary care, marketing and constraints hindering productivity. More specifically, the survey aimed at establishing the reasons for keeping pigs by smallholder farmers, determining the relative importance of both physical and socioeconomic benefits to the farmers rearing pigs, and understanding the production constraints that hinder pig productivity necessary for addressing productivity improvement strategies in smallholder systems.
Materials and method Study areas The selected study sites were Kiambu and Kakamega administrative counties of Kenya. Kiambu county is located in Central Kenya to the north of Nairobi at 1° 10′ 0″ S/36° 50′ 0″ E and covers a total area of 1323.9 km2. The county has a population of 1,623,282 (KNBS 2009). It lies at an altitude of about 1720 masl. The annual rainfall is between 800 and 1200 mm. Kakamega county is located in Western Kenya at 0° 17′ 0″ N/34° 45′ 0″ E and covers an area of 1395 km2. The county has a population of 1,660,651 (KNBS 2009). It lies within altitude 1250–2000 masl. The area receives an average annual rainfall of 1250–1750 mm. These are amongst the regions with high smallholder pig production in the country but with very divergent production systems. The distinct production systems differ in remoteness, market access, resources availability and pig production intensity. In Kiambu, pig production is mainly under semiintensive commercial systems (Wabacha et al. 2004), while in Kakamega, production is mainly under smallholder extensive/free-range (Kagira et al. 2010; Mutua et al. 2010). Kiambu is located on the outskirts of Nairobi, the capital city and characterized by high-potential farming. Pig production is driven by the high demand for pork and pork products. Kakamega is a rural setup and production is driven by availability of farm resources. The contrasting study areas were selected assuming the economic and resource availability would influence the farmers’ management and breeding practices. Although land is limiting in semi-intensive systems mostly located in peri-urban areas such as Kiambu, there is availability of market waste and industrial by-products which can be utilised as pig feeds. The advantage of keeping pigs in these
Trop Anim Health Prod (2015) 47:369–376
areas is that they convert the waste and by-products into valuable products which reduce competition for similar foods with humans. Pig production in Kakamega is more extensive and driven by farm resources availability. Under such conditions where options for intensification are limited, attempts have to be made to increase production efficiency through improved utilisation of available resources both natural and household (capital and labour) (Roessler et al. 2008). Characterization of the farming system Defining the characteristics of farmers, farms and pig husbandry circumstances is an essential prerequisite for breed improvement decisions (Bett et al. 2009). The farmers’ characteristics comprised of age, household size, gender, level of education and formal training in agriculture. Farm characteristics focused on farm size and ownership, number of livestock kept, average herd sizes, herd performance parameters and reasons for removal from the herd. Data on pig management practices comprised of feeding management, veterinary and extension management and product marketing. Data analysis Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. Tests for statistical significance or otherwise for particular comparisons were done with chisquare (χ2). Indices were calculated to provide an overall ranking for the sources of cash income, importance of keeping livestock by species and the purposes of keeping pigs. The indices represent weighted averages of all rankings for a particular reason or importance. The following equation from Bett et al. (2009) was adopted to calculate the index (Ii) for each reason or importance: 20 1 3 0 1 X 3 X3 3 X 3 n 4@ 2 A X = X 5 Ii ¼ @ 2 A j¼1 j k¼1 j¼1 j i 1 1 k
where Xj is the percentage of respondents ranking the reason or importance i in the jth rank and k is the sum of ranks for n number reasons or importance levels.
Results and discussion Socioeconomic characteristics Table 1 shows the pig farm and farmer characteristics in the semi-intensive and extensive systems. In the semi-intensive system, households had an average of five persons. The age of
Trop Anim Health Prod (2015) 47:369–376 Table 1 Characteristics of semiintensive and extensive pig farms and farmers
371
Variables
Level/range
Semi-intensive
Extensive
Average age of farmers Household residents Education level
19–77 1–10 No formal education Primary Secondary
44 5 2% 29 % 48 %
43 6 8% 54 % 28 %
Post-secondary
21 % 10 % 0.36 86 % 12 % 2%
10 % 8% 0.65 62 % 36 % 2%
Formal training in agriculture Total land size (Ha) Land ownership
0.04–3.64 Own Family Lease
respondents ranged from 19 to 75 years with equal proportions of males and females. In the extensive system, the number of residents averaged six persons per household. The age of respondents ranged between 20 and 77 years with 54 % being males and 46 % females. There were only a few farmers who had attained formal training in agriculture with 2 % having trained at certificate level and 7 % at farmers field schools (FFS). In the semi-intensive system, the median land size was 0.38 acre compared to 1 acre in the extensive. Only 27 % of the farmers in the semi-intensive system had 1 acre and above compared to 64 % in the extensive system. There was no disparity in gender involvement as has been reported in other studies that women manage pig herds with men playing lesser roles (Kagira et al. 2010; Lemke et al. 2007). In agreement with Mutua et al. (2010), some farmers feel that pig management requires combined effort and therefore involves both genders. This has also been reported by
Table 2
Lemke et al. (2007). There seems to be a greater decline in land size given that Wabacha et al. (2004) reported a median size of 1 acre in the semi-intensive a few years ago. This is because of the continued subdivisions of land due to the increasing human population, inheritance system and conversion of land to other uses such as real estate. Table 2 shows the ranking of sources of income and importance of livestock species. Livestock was ranked as the main source of income by 62 and 50 % of the farmers in the semi-intensive and extensive systems, respectively. This indicates the relative importance of livestock in provision of regular cash income. Income from crops received a very low ranking in the semi-intensive system owing to the small land sizes which drive farmers to intensive animal production such as pig, poultry and zero-grazing dairy production. Although crop production was a major farming activity in the extensive system, the largest proportion was destined for domestic
Ranking of sources of income and importance of livestock species in the production systems Semi-intensive
Source of income Livestock Crops Salary/wages
Extensive
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Sum
Index
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Sum
Index
62 2 35
38 4 35
– 25 6
100 31 76
0.461 0.143 0.350
50 22 24
42 30 24
6 14 26
98 66 74
0.392 0.264 0.296
2 6
– –
4 6
0.018 0.028
– 4
– 2
– 6
– 12
– 0.048
25 23 8 8
– 6 19 6 6
100 48 33 14 6
0.498 0.239 0.164 0.070 0.030
54 44 2
38 30 28 2 –
8 6 46
100 80 76 2 –
0.388 0.310 0.295 0.008 –
Home industry 2 Relative remittances – Ranking of livestock by importance Pigs 75 Cattle 19 Chicken 6 Sheep Goats
–
–
372
Trop Anim Health Prod (2015) 47:369–376
consumption. Most of the farmers had some kind of employment (either permanent or casual) or business to complement pig keeping. This differed significantly (χ2, P
REGULAR ARTICLES
Evaluation of pig production practices, constraints and opportunities for improvement in smallholder production systems in Kenya Jackson Mwenda Mbuthia & Thomas Odiwuor Rewe & Alexander Kigunzu Kahi
Received: 25 June 2014 / Accepted: 18 November 2014 / Published online: 2 December 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract This study evaluated pig production practices by smallholder farmers in two distinct production systems geared towards addressing their constraints and prospects for improvement. The production systems evaluated were semiintensive and extensive and differed in remoteness, market access, resource availability and pig production intensity. Data were collected using structured questionnaires where a total of 102 pig farmers were interviewed. Qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed to define the socioeconomic characteristics of the production systems, understanding the different roles that pigs play, marketing systems and constraints to production. In both systems, regular cash income and insurance against emergencies were ranked as the main reasons for rearing pigs. Marketing of pigs was mainly driven by the type of production operation. Finances, feeds and housing were identified as the major constraints to production. The study provides important parameters and identifies constraints important for consideration in design of sustainable production improvement strategies. Feeding challenges can be improved through understanding the composition and proper utilization of local feed resources. Provision of adequate housing would improve the stocking rates and control mating.
Keywords Extensive system . Kenya . Management practices . Pigs . Semi-intensive system
J. M. Mbuthia : A. K. Kahi (*) Animal Breeding and Genomics Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Egerton University, P.O. Box 536-20115, Egerton, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] T. O. Rewe Department of Animal Sciences, Pwani University, P.O. Box 195-80108, Kilifi, Kenya
Introduction In Kenya, pig production plays important socioeconomic roles at both household and national levels. Pig rearing is mainly by smallholder farmers who constitute about 70 % of the total pig farmers (MOLD 2006). Production systems for pigs in the tropics, including Kenya, include large-scale commercial systems that are characterized by improved breeds, use of commercial concentrates for feeding and proper housing with sophisticated equipment, incorporating biosafety measures (Lekule and Kyvsgaard 2003). The commercial small-scale system is characterized by improved breeds, high planes of nutrition consisting of concentrates and therefore relatively high performance (Wabacha et al. 2004). In the free-range ‘scavenging’ system, pigs move freely around the house and the surroundings scavenging a large part of their food. There might be supplementation with kitchen swill or agricultural waste products. Pigs are rarely sheltered and there is no investment on feed concentrates or medical services (Kagira et al. 2010). These production systems can combine one or more type of animal species with crops and fish to become an integrated production system whereby the output from one subsystem becomes an input to the other subsystems (Huynh et al. 2007). The different production systems determine the herd sizes, structures and dynamics and can be modified according to resource availability. This study focuses on smallholder semi-intensive and extensive tethered/free-range systems. Over the years, pig production in Kenya has remained relatively unexploited despite the country having an established pig industry. The production potential remains underutilized due to lack of properly defined production practices and organized breeding programmes to facilitate improvement. In smallholder systems, inadequate feeding, inefficient veterinary care and inbreeding are some of the major impediments to pigs expressing their full performance
370
potential (Lemke et al. 2006; Wabacha et al. 2004). For improvement programmes to be successful, there is the need for appropriate understanding of these systems so as to holistically address their constraints such as feeding, breeding, health, management and marketing infrastructure. In this study, the existing pig production practices were evaluated. Intrinsic aspects are the farm characteristics, reasons for keeping pigs, feeding management, housing, veterinary care, marketing and constraints hindering productivity. More specifically, the survey aimed at establishing the reasons for keeping pigs by smallholder farmers, determining the relative importance of both physical and socioeconomic benefits to the farmers rearing pigs, and understanding the production constraints that hinder pig productivity necessary for addressing productivity improvement strategies in smallholder systems.
Materials and method Study areas The selected study sites were Kiambu and Kakamega administrative counties of Kenya. Kiambu county is located in Central Kenya to the north of Nairobi at 1° 10′ 0″ S/36° 50′ 0″ E and covers a total area of 1323.9 km2. The county has a population of 1,623,282 (KNBS 2009). It lies at an altitude of about 1720 masl. The annual rainfall is between 800 and 1200 mm. Kakamega county is located in Western Kenya at 0° 17′ 0″ N/34° 45′ 0″ E and covers an area of 1395 km2. The county has a population of 1,660,651 (KNBS 2009). It lies within altitude 1250–2000 masl. The area receives an average annual rainfall of 1250–1750 mm. These are amongst the regions with high smallholder pig production in the country but with very divergent production systems. The distinct production systems differ in remoteness, market access, resources availability and pig production intensity. In Kiambu, pig production is mainly under semiintensive commercial systems (Wabacha et al. 2004), while in Kakamega, production is mainly under smallholder extensive/free-range (Kagira et al. 2010; Mutua et al. 2010). Kiambu is located on the outskirts of Nairobi, the capital city and characterized by high-potential farming. Pig production is driven by the high demand for pork and pork products. Kakamega is a rural setup and production is driven by availability of farm resources. The contrasting study areas were selected assuming the economic and resource availability would influence the farmers’ management and breeding practices. Although land is limiting in semi-intensive systems mostly located in peri-urban areas such as Kiambu, there is availability of market waste and industrial by-products which can be utilised as pig feeds. The advantage of keeping pigs in these
Trop Anim Health Prod (2015) 47:369–376
areas is that they convert the waste and by-products into valuable products which reduce competition for similar foods with humans. Pig production in Kakamega is more extensive and driven by farm resources availability. Under such conditions where options for intensification are limited, attempts have to be made to increase production efficiency through improved utilisation of available resources both natural and household (capital and labour) (Roessler et al. 2008). Characterization of the farming system Defining the characteristics of farmers, farms and pig husbandry circumstances is an essential prerequisite for breed improvement decisions (Bett et al. 2009). The farmers’ characteristics comprised of age, household size, gender, level of education and formal training in agriculture. Farm characteristics focused on farm size and ownership, number of livestock kept, average herd sizes, herd performance parameters and reasons for removal from the herd. Data on pig management practices comprised of feeding management, veterinary and extension management and product marketing. Data analysis Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. Tests for statistical significance or otherwise for particular comparisons were done with chisquare (χ2). Indices were calculated to provide an overall ranking for the sources of cash income, importance of keeping livestock by species and the purposes of keeping pigs. The indices represent weighted averages of all rankings for a particular reason or importance. The following equation from Bett et al. (2009) was adopted to calculate the index (Ii) for each reason or importance: 20 1 3 0 1 X 3 X3 3 X 3 n 4@ 2 A X = X 5 Ii ¼ @ 2 A j¼1 j k¼1 j¼1 j i 1 1 k
where Xj is the percentage of respondents ranking the reason or importance i in the jth rank and k is the sum of ranks for n number reasons or importance levels.
Results and discussion Socioeconomic characteristics Table 1 shows the pig farm and farmer characteristics in the semi-intensive and extensive systems. In the semi-intensive system, households had an average of five persons. The age of
Trop Anim Health Prod (2015) 47:369–376 Table 1 Characteristics of semiintensive and extensive pig farms and farmers
371
Variables
Level/range
Semi-intensive
Extensive
Average age of farmers Household residents Education level
19–77 1–10 No formal education Primary Secondary
44 5 2% 29 % 48 %
43 6 8% 54 % 28 %
Post-secondary
21 % 10 % 0.36 86 % 12 % 2%
10 % 8% 0.65 62 % 36 % 2%
Formal training in agriculture Total land size (Ha) Land ownership
0.04–3.64 Own Family Lease
respondents ranged from 19 to 75 years with equal proportions of males and females. In the extensive system, the number of residents averaged six persons per household. The age of respondents ranged between 20 and 77 years with 54 % being males and 46 % females. There were only a few farmers who had attained formal training in agriculture with 2 % having trained at certificate level and 7 % at farmers field schools (FFS). In the semi-intensive system, the median land size was 0.38 acre compared to 1 acre in the extensive. Only 27 % of the farmers in the semi-intensive system had 1 acre and above compared to 64 % in the extensive system. There was no disparity in gender involvement as has been reported in other studies that women manage pig herds with men playing lesser roles (Kagira et al. 2010; Lemke et al. 2007). In agreement with Mutua et al. (2010), some farmers feel that pig management requires combined effort and therefore involves both genders. This has also been reported by
Table 2
Lemke et al. (2007). There seems to be a greater decline in land size given that Wabacha et al. (2004) reported a median size of 1 acre in the semi-intensive a few years ago. This is because of the continued subdivisions of land due to the increasing human population, inheritance system and conversion of land to other uses such as real estate. Table 2 shows the ranking of sources of income and importance of livestock species. Livestock was ranked as the main source of income by 62 and 50 % of the farmers in the semi-intensive and extensive systems, respectively. This indicates the relative importance of livestock in provision of regular cash income. Income from crops received a very low ranking in the semi-intensive system owing to the small land sizes which drive farmers to intensive animal production such as pig, poultry and zero-grazing dairy production. Although crop production was a major farming activity in the extensive system, the largest proportion was destined for domestic
Ranking of sources of income and importance of livestock species in the production systems Semi-intensive
Source of income Livestock Crops Salary/wages
Extensive
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Sum
Index
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Sum
Index
62 2 35
38 4 35
– 25 6
100 31 76
0.461 0.143 0.350
50 22 24
42 30 24
6 14 26
98 66 74
0.392 0.264 0.296
2 6
– –
4 6
0.018 0.028
– 4
– 2
– 6
– 12
– 0.048
25 23 8 8
– 6 19 6 6
100 48 33 14 6
0.498 0.239 0.164 0.070 0.030
54 44 2
38 30 28 2 –
8 6 46
100 80 76 2 –
0.388 0.310 0.295 0.008 –
Home industry 2 Relative remittances – Ranking of livestock by importance Pigs 75 Cattle 19 Chicken 6 Sheep Goats
–
–
372
Trop Anim Health Prod (2015) 47:369–376
consumption. Most of the farmers had some kind of employment (either permanent or casual) or business to complement pig keeping. This differed significantly (χ2, P
